Tonight at Planning Board, the Boatworks Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will get its day in the sun. The plan, 242 housing units shoe horned on to an old industrial site with very little public open space and contrary to the General Plans goals for roadway design. (quick note to Planning Board, please, please, please [...]
Two of the things I’m hoping will be discussed at tonight’s council meeting are Fiscal Neutrality and Public Benefits. A lot has been made of a supposed “$500 million dollar shortfall” despite the fact that it’s a made up number that doesn’t withstand the smell test.
So back at the end of September, Renewed Hope released the much ballyhooed “Doubtful Promises” report. Upon reading it, I had some questions and reached out to Eve Bach and Bill Smith, the authors who graciously offered to answer them. Time availability being what it is (see:JKW:lack of blog posts), it took me a while to dash off a list of the things I was trying to understand.
The responses that I received were great, a lot of time and effort went into them and I wanted to post them in a way that respected that.
Over the weekend, I opened the front door and stepped onto the porch to find that the flyer-fairy had left a “gift” on my doorstep. The first in what one might imagine will be three or four flyers from Revitalize Alameda Point. In chatting with a couple of people it came to my attention that not all neighborhoods got them, and so I’m posting it for anyone to see. Enjoy!
Almost from the get-go, some folks have tried to claim it was untrue (I guess that I was making it up, despite linking to his statement), and then again at the end of last week, the ever-correct Jane Smythe claimed that Matarrese had changed his mind because his statement was no longer on the web. At the same time, Don Roberts celebrated 20 years of talking about things without knowing what he’s talking about with special guest Pat Bail! Pat repeated the canard that Frank Matarrese had seen the light about Alameda Point because of “All” the opposition to the project (part of the “one-person, one-community-group” strategy to defeat the Point). The ironic proof? Matarrese’s website no longer presents his announcement of his support.
Yet another group has popped up around the Point, that makes 2. Honestly, do Action Alameda, SOC!A, Citizens for a Better Alameda, Keep Measure A Committee expect us not to realize that the contacts for these groups are all the same people? Heck, Gretchen Lipow is listed as a key person for three of them!
Earlier this week, the Sierra Club announced that they were signing onto the Alameda Point Vision which was a grassroots effort to develop a consensus vision for the direction of Alameda Point which began before SunCal was even in the picture.
Eighteen months ago and later, I suggested that the boosters of the pro-active Density Bonus law in Alameda didn’t really understand what they were pushing, and that it was being used for political, rather than practical purposes.
Apparently someone else watched the SOC!A video about Alameda Point and realized that all their photos showing open space at Alameda Point were in locations that SunCal’s Master Plan has slated for Open Space, making the point of the video a bit pointless (pun intended).
On Tuesday night, Frank Matarrese told me that he’s now a supporter of the Alameda Point Ballot measure (and that his acknowledging this to some people has already lead to being accused of being paid by SunCal.
Alameda news and opinion
Mindfulness in the face of challenge.
